Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!

Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Hypocrisy to what? "Wanting" more power and saying something is unsafe is completely unrelated. I am in no way arguing a person wanting more power.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KC

I had to re-read the statements a couple times, but I think what he's saying is "But Honda did it". They created a more powerful engine, and upped gas mileage in doing so (drivetrain is irelevant in that case), Subaru should be able to do the same.

I say that may not be feasable with a boxer engine unless they come out with a new (as in, revolutionary) design replacing the FA/FB. There's some trickery going on with the new I4s that honda is using, and it has caused them some heartache...

As much as I feel the Crosstrek has adequate power, it doesn't return the mpg a lower powered engine should in a lighter package than the Forester.

Look at the new Forester; it has more power and torque, heavier, yet has the same hwy mpg and only 1 mpg less city mpg.

Both now ride on the same new platform, same ground clearance.

The only saving grace for the Crosstrek is that it's cheaper, lighter, and has available MT.

Which is why I say the boxer engine is simply the best its going to be unless something revolutionary happens with them. The N/A engines are all fairly similar save for packaging and weight/balance needs. There's also gearing (I think the Forester and Crosstrek have simlar but not same units...

Car connection says this about the '19 Forester (take with a grain of salt)...
3.60 - 0.75 and 3.7FD.

I cannot find the Crosstrek info on Joes Cars101, but just seeing above, they have 2 different CVTs in the '18 Forester... with different final drives.

The '19 Crosstrek according to carconnection is 3.60 - 0.67 with a 3.9FD.

So, the Forester appears to have a slightly better FD than the crosstrek where gas mileage becomes a wash like it is. Thing is, with less power in the crosstrek the higher final drive gives it slightly better acelleration. So... it's all about the tradeoffs. You could put in a lower final drive in the crosstrek, see better mileage, but acelleration will suffer (and isn't that what everyone complains about? ).

As much as I feel the Crosstrek has adequate power, it doesn't return the mpg a lower powered engine should in a lighter package than the Forester.

Look at the new Forester; it has more power and torque, heavier, yet has the same hwy mpg and only 1 mpg less city mpg.

Both now ride on the same new platform, same ground clearance.

The only saving grace for the Crosstrek is that it's cheaper, lighter, and has available MT.

I'll probably never fully understand "cost" things; but, I'd think this was a big part of it. Now why does is it not have "better" MPG like you said? I have asked my sources if there was any sort of explanation for it. I can usually tell when they know something and don't want to tell me versus them actually not knowing. MY sources do not have an answer for it.

The entire argument stems from the fact Subaru has a gaping hole in their lineup. If they made a WRX hatchback all of it is moot. Their insistence nobody buys performance hatchbacks only makes things worse. I welcome the addition of turbo Legacy and Outback into the fold because I’m a consumer for those models, but quite a few here are not and don’t meet their needs any more than a Forester XT didn’t.

The entire argument stems from the fact Subaru has a gaping hole in their lineup. If they made a WRX hatchback all of it is moot. Their insistence nobody buys performance hatchbacks only makes things worse. I welcome the addition of turbo Legacy and Outback into the fold because Iím a consumer for those models, but quite a few here are not and donít meet their needs any more than a Forester XT didnít.

Absolutely. Had a hatch been made instead of a sedan(which wouldn't have happened at the time since the other one was a wagon), I think sales numbers would be, at least, even with how it went with sedans. I'm just always against over sensationalism. "Gaping hole" is obviously not. At first we blamed capacity for not making a hatch as a third option. Then the argument seemed to go away after the expansion of SIA. However, I think it is still an issue. Look at the quality issues and everything else going on with production and production staff. Subaru needs to get their act together. I hate this wait for what will likely be my next new car; but, I want them to get it right also.

How has real-world MPG been with the turbo Civics? It seems to me like people tend to wring out little turbos too often and do a lot worse vs. their EPA estimates than a comparable NA motor. Boost addiction.[...]

[...]
Driven very hard—with us redlining the engine on almost every shift—the Sport hatch returned 31 mpg. This is a bit short of the EPA’s 33-mpg combined rating. Driven with more restraint, the Sport sips fuel, as is proved by the 43 mpg we measured in our 75-mph highway fuel-economy test. This real-world result is nearly 10 percent better than the EPA’s highway rating of 39 mpg.[...]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredzy

[...]I'd figure Honda to do well to mitigate that. I suspect Subaru stayed out of small turbos in the US at least in part for fear of class action suits around fuel economy.

I agree with what you're saying about boost addiction and driving style / patterns.
But, IMO, if notoriously foot-heavy journalists can get 31 mpg out of a 180-hp 1.5L turbo engine, then most people should be able to do the same or better.
I believe that Subaru will not be able to deliver fuel economy AND truly satisfying performance UNLESS they start using smaller displacement engines with turbos.
As I alluded to with my imaginary "FB14DIT", a properly undersquare 1.2L to 1.4L boxer engine will do much better cruising on the highway compared to a FB20 that is only mildly undersquare.

What's the ratio spread on the Honda trans? Subaru's CVT is limited to 5.X or so because of packaging.

Peace,

Greg

It looks like Honda is using 2 different CVTs in the Civic:
- one they call "M-CVT" paired with the 2.0L N/A engine
- the other one they call "LL-CVT" paired with the 1.5T engine

M-CVT spread is 6.19:

Quote:

Ratio Range:2.526~0.408
Reverse:2.706~1.552
Final Drive:4.680

LL-CVT spread is 6.53:

Quote:

Ratio Range:2.645~0.405
Reverse:1.859～1.265
Final Drive:4.811

So, based on KC's numbers, it looks like the ratio spread from the 2018 Forester CVT is close to Honda's CVT ratio spread in the Civic.
But, 2019 Crosstrek seems to get a lower spread in the 5.3 range.

How has real-world MPG been with the turbo Civics? It seems to me like people tend to wring out little turbos too often and do a lot worse vs. their EPA estimates than a comparable NA motor. Boost addiction.

I'd figure Honda to do well to mitigate that. I suspect Subaru stayed out of small turbos in the US at least in part for fear of class action suits around fuel economy.

I get 42-44 highway and mid 30s city, so better than rating. The motor is so torquey I donít have to shift as much as Iím used to. Like you can leave it in 6th on the highway for a hour.

Hmm, what was that line about something sedans and segments while SRT was fielding a hatchback rally car? No remember Justy? We do. We will always remember.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4S-TURBO

FHI and SIA makes hatchbacks every single day. Why would they make a performance version if performance is more defined in the sedan segment and sales have not waned enough to bother? Spin huh? lol

Nah nah nah. You are spinning it. They always make 2 cars right? Sedan and 5 door. They still did. They just didn't bring one to the states. They made the 5 door for the reasons we know. They still had to make a sedan as well. We just got a BS excuse of why they went sedan for USDM. I do believe we would not have had sales records with only a WRX wagon and they surely weren't going to do a wagon and a hatch. They have NEVER said anything about sales of a hatch other than they were 50/50 with sedans.

How has real-world MPG been with the turbo Civics? It seems to me like people tend to wring out little turbos too often and do a lot worse vs. their EPA estimates than a comparable NA motor. Boost addiction.

I'd figure Honda to do well to mitigate that. I suspect Subaru stayed out of small turbos in the US at least in part for fear of class action suits around fuel economy.

I did a 400-mile trip in my Civic 1.5T and got 45.6 mpg. My lifetime average over ~20,000 miles is 36mpg.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VarmintCong

I get 42-44 highway and mid 30s city, so better than rating. The motor is so torquey I donít have to shift as much as Iím used to. Like you can leave it in 6th on the highway for a hour.

Manual, I'm assuming? I wanted one, but they were IMPOSSIBLE to find around here (Seattle). Also, my wife doesn't drive stick, and it's not like I "need" a manual. I just really wanted one.